Unsorted FBI Documents

~t *►

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU #318 Case file # 95-272708

Material Examiner:

Malone (R<

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial, transcript not available.

CRM - 5992

PENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 10:15 AM (Time), 03/16/2001 (Date)

File #: 95-272708

Laboratory #(s): 60516054

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

XD

o

n

□

TR, QX

□

Xa

□

□

□

□

□

□

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Testimony Date(s): Pages:

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number:

60516054

Date: Aug 22, 1986

Laboratory Number:

Date:

Laboratory Number:

•

Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of:

RQ

Laboratory Number:

60516054

• ,

Page 1 of 3

Initials

□ No

Was any other material reviewed? Xo

Yes

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letter (dated 5-8-86)

Results of Review

File #: . 95-272708 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q9, Q18-Q20A, Q22, Q29, Q31,

Q38, Q41, Kl, K2, K5, K6, K8

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No* or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the *
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)?

, □ Yes □ No XQ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

* the bench notes? □ Yes X Q No □ Unable to Determine

Review of T estimony :

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Xa

Transcript not available.

3)

Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

n Yes

D No

o Unable to

Determine

4)

Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

.□ Yes

o No

□ Unable to

Determine

5)

Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

o Yes

□ No

o Unable to

Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials:

V

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-272708

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison
was performed correctly. A confirmation of the hair matches was apparently obtained from a second examiner.

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench nofes, but the
documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses
abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret

Malone’s bench notes indicate that Negroid hair was recovered from Q9 (sheet), Q18 (sheet), Q19 (coat),
Q20A (debris from body), Q22 (rug) and Q38 (carpet). The presence of these hairs, foreign to the Caucasian
victims and suspect, was not reported. .

Review completed at: 10:45 AM (Time), 03/16/2001 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0:30 hours

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review

03/16/2001

(Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: